Work-related and individual factors in biological exposure incidents: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Biological exposure incidents are frequent in the workplace and have serious repercussions on the health of professionals, with millions of cases annually and thousands of infections by blood-borne viruses. The objective of this study was to map and analyze aspects related to work and individual factors associated with biological exposure incidents involving healthcare professionals in the hospital environment.Methods: This is a scoping review following the JBI methodology. The guiding question was: “What are the aspects related to work and individual factors associated with biological exposure incidents in the hospital environment?” Searches were conducted in electronic databases including LILACS, BVS, MEDLINE/Pubmed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies from primary care professionals, those without clear methodology, case reports, expert opinions, review studies, and grey literature were excluded. Screening and inclusion were conducted by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.Results: A total of 10,365 articles were found; applying a temporal limit of the last 5 years yielded 4,542 articles. After removing duplicates, 1,965 studies remained. Following title and abstract screening, 140 articles were selected. After full-text review, 46 studies were included, of which 10 comprised the final sample. Work-related aspects such as high workload, long hours, and rotating shifts increase healthcare professionals' risk of incidents. Similarly, there is an association between individual factors such as fatigue, stress, and drowsiness and such accidents.Conclusions: Studies underscore the link between biological exposure incidents and inadequate work conditions and organization, exacerbated by physical and mental factors like fatigue, drowsiness, sleep deprivation, and stress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".